On Friday 11 March 2005 13:13, Marc Schwartz wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-03-11 at 17:17 +0000, Prof Brian Ripley wrote:
> > I see you have both a scalable font (the first) and size-specfic
> > fonts. My guess is that the scalable font is not encoded in the
> > same way as the others: can you track down where it is coming from?
> >
> > Otherwise my list on FC3 is the same as yours (minus the
> > duplicates, which are also puzzling). I have also just checked
> > Exceed, which has the same list plus scalable fonts (and also has
> >
> > -adobe-symbol-0-0-normal--0-0-0-0-p-0-adobe-fontspecific
> > -adobe-symbol-0-0-normal--0-0-0-0-p-0-sun-fontspecific
> > -adobe-symbol-0-0-normal--0-0-100-100-p-0-adobe-fontspecific
> > -adobe-symbol-0-0-normal--0-0-100-100-p-0-sun-fontspecific
> > -adobe-symbol-0-0-normal--0-0-75-75-p-0-adobe-fontspecific
> > -adobe-symbol-0-0-normal--0-0-75-75-p-0-sun-fontspecific
> >
> > which caused problems for 2.0.1 with getting bold symbols in some
> > sizes, hence the second bug fix I mentioned).
> >
> > As a wild guess, do you have a font server as well as local fonts?
I don't think so. My XF86Config-4 file has the line
FontPath "unix/:7100" # local font server
but I don't see any font server package actually installed, and I get
deepayan $ xfsinfo -server localhost:7100
xfsinfo: unable to open server "localhost:7100"
. I do have fontconfig (and a bunch of fonts all over the place), which
may explain the duplicates.
[...]
> Deepayan, which X server is being used? FC3 (fully updated) is using
> xorg 6.8.1 if that might make a difference.
I'm using Debian testing, the version of X being 4.3.0.dfsg.1-10 (4.3.0
with some modifications). But this is not the issue, since things work
fine on another Debian system with the same version of X. It turns out
that the problem is with the gsfonts-x11 package. After removing it, I
get the correct symbols (with a warning message):
> expr = expression(sum(x, 1, n))
> plot(1, main = expr, type = "n")
> text(1, 1, expr)
Warning message:
X11 used font size 8 when 9 was requested
There's still a bug, but probably not in R. The only external indication
I can get that something is wrong is when I compare
$ xfd -fn
-adobe-symbol-medium-r-normal--20-140-100-100-p-107-adobe-fontspecific
and
$ xfd -fn
-adobe-symbol-medium-r-normal--0-0-100-100-p-107-adobe-fontspecific
The second one claims to display
-urw-standard symbols
l-medium-r-normal--17-120-100-100-p-89-adobe-fontspecific
and in fact does *not* have the summation symbol. (Screenshots at
http://www.stat.wisc.edu/~deepayan/R/xfd-fixed.png and
http://www.stat.wisc.edu/~deepayan/R/xfd-scalable.png
). However, the file /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts/Type1/fonts.dir has the
line
s050000l.pfb -urw-standard symbols
l-medium-r-normal--0-0-0-0-p-0-adobe-fontspecific
which suggests that the actual font used is s050000l.pfb, and a font
editor shows that it does contain the summation symbol (U+2211).
Deepayan
______________________________________________
R-devel@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
